Bill Clinton Supports Dialogue With Iran (1 Viewer)

[jujuman13]

Sensible idea.
No doubt many of you disagree?
Comments please
Link

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...EMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-07-23-59-53

Even when fighting one's enemy, warring Nations have been known to talk with each other with the idea of arriving at a solution that all concerned can live with.
The fact that this President is so dead set against talking with those whom the US is fighting as well as those who are reportedly supporting them reveals a weakness in his character and one that will unfortunately be the root cause of many more US deaths.
President Nixon spoke with China and USSR, as a result the air of suspicion regarding these Nation's intent was largely reduced.
Talking costs very little, but the results could be enormously advantageous.

 

[Cold Dirt]

Sensible idea.
No doubt many of you disagree?
Comments please
Link

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...EMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-07-23-59-53

Even when fighting one's enemy, warring Nations have been known to talk with each other with the idea of arriving at a solution that all concerned can live with.
The fact that this President is so dead set against talking with those whom the US is fighting as well as those who are reportedly supporting them reveals a weakness in his character and one that will unfortunately be the root cause of many more US deaths.
President Nixon spoke with China and USSR, as a result the air of suspicion regarding these Nation's intent was largely reduced.
Talking costs very little, but the results could be enormously advantageous.

Yes we all see what Clinton got us with his talking with our enemies. He is now in the last stages of having a nuclear missile that can hit the left coast.

BTW, how do you talk to someone that believes they have to instructed by their god to destroy you?

Must be nice to live in fruit loop land.

 

[jfuh]

Sensible idea.
No doubt many of you disagree?
Comments please
Link

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...EMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-12-07-23-59-53

Even when fighting one's enemy, warring Nations have been known to talk with each other with the idea of arriving at a solution that all concerned can live with.
The fact that this President is so dead set against talking with those whom the US is fighting as well as those who are reportedly supporting them reveals a weakness in his character and one that will unfortunately be the root cause of many more US deaths.
President Nixon spoke with China and USSR, as a result the air of suspicion regarding these Nation's intent was largely reduced.
Talking costs very little, but the results could be enormously advantageous.

Long overdue. The question is how.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Clinton taught us that it is always best to use diplomacy and talk with your enemies ....... unless, of course, you're presidency is spiraling out of control due to marital indiscretions and lying under oath to a grand jury .... in which case, quickly divert attention away by bombing an aspirin factory.

 

[AYFR]

This from a guy that "talked" North Korea into becoming a nuclear threat.
I'll pass thank you.
Why should we talk to Iran and Syria, that is exactly what they want. Do you really think we will make any progress with a nations leader that said that Israel and teh western world need to be wiped off the earth?
Since when do we "talk" to our enemies?:twocents:

 

[jfuh]

Clinton taught us that it is always best to use diplomacy and talk with your enemies ....... unless, of course, you're presidency is spiraling out of control due to marital indiscretions and lying under oath to a grand jury .... in which case, quickly divert attention away by bombing an aspirin factory.

Ooooh so is that what you call it? Funny how when Clinton shoots cruise missles against terrorists it's called diverting attention but when Bush does it it's called bringing the fight to the enemy. You are so transparently predictable. Do you ever have anything constructive to add to the topic at hand instead of just blabbering whatever faux sound bite that pops into your mind? Talks with Iran support or not support - do try to keep up.

 

[jfuh]

This from a guy that "talked" North Korea into becoming a nuclear threat.
I'll pass thank you.
Why should we talk to Iran and Syria, that is exactly what they want. Do you really think we will make any progress with a nations leader that said that Israel and teh western world need to be wiped off the earth?
Since when do we "talk" to our enemies?:twocents:

WE talked to Moscow and Beijing. Normalized relations with Beijing during just around the hight of the cultural revolution with Nixon visiting Mao Tze dong, then that same year being the first US president to visit Moscow. What did it lead to? Treaty after treaty that stabilized relationships.
We also talked with the Japanese and Germans on quite the regular basis during WWII as well as then talking with the N. Koreans today - even though we are only at a cease fire - and finally we talk with the Vietnamese as well.
Only benefits can come of talks.
As for Clinton's talks with the N. Koreans, if you look in the literature, everything was fine and dandy (as fine and dandy as relations with N. K. go) until Bush labeled NK the axis of evil.
Talks with Iran now only amount to everything to gain and nothing to loose.

 

[AYFR]

WE talked to Moscow and Beijing. Normalized relations with Beijing during just around the hight of the cultural revolution with Nixon visiting Mao Tze dong, then that same year being the first US president to visit Moscow. What did it lead to? Treaty after treaty that stabilized relationships.
We also talked with the Japanese and Germans on quite the regular basis during WWII as well as then talking with the N. Koreans today - even though we are only at a cease fire - and finally we talk with the Vietnamese as well.
Only benefits can come of talks.
As for Clinton's talks with the N. Koreans, if you look in the literature, everything was fine and dandy (as fine and dandy as relations with N. K. go) until Bush labeled NK the axis of evil.
Talks with Iran now only amount to everything to gain and nothing to loose.

When we talked to Moscow and Beijing we had the upper hand and were still building up our military.
Not the same with Iran and Syria
As for N. Korea no everything was not fine you just don't come up with a nuclear bomb overnight. The were working on this from the get go and just playing Clinton, which is what will happen if we talk to Iran and Syria
What benifits can we get from talking to them? Do you really think they want to work with us or are they just trying to buy some time.
We run the risk of losing Israel as an ally if we talk to Iran and leave them out of it. Not a risk I want to take.

 

[aps]

I would love to see Bill Clinton as our Secretary of State. That man has a way with people. Diplomacy is his middle name.

I like how Current Affairs mocks him, while at the same time, using the improper form of "you're. " It's "your," by the way, in the context that you used it in. I love it when people make fun of someone and are not capable of doing it while being grammatically correct. :lol:

 

[Cold Dirt]

I would love to see Bill Clinton as our Secretary of State. That man has a way with people. Diplomacy is his middle name.

I like how Current Affairs mocks him, while at the same time, using the improper form of "you're. " It's "your," by the way, in the context that you used it in. I love it when people make fun of someone and are not capable of doing it while being grammatically correct. :lol:

Another grammar Nazi....you usually see this when the poster doesnt have the smarts to debate the poster, so they must find something else to attack.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Put Clinton aside for a moment.
We talked with Russia all during the cold war, when they were threatening to blow us up along with the rest of the planet.

The thinking for some on the right is: "We should kill and bomb before we succumb to use diplomacy as a last resort." It's very Orwellian...

 

[aps]

Another grammar Nazi....you usually see this when the poster doesnt have the smarts to debate the poster, so they must find something else to attack.

LOL I just think it's comical when someone attacks someone while looking rather uneducated.

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Right....really I don't care if he does want to talk to Iran.That's great, but that doesn't mean they're going to listen to us or that they care. Irans people are taught to hate Americans and Jews.Their president said the Holocaust is a myth.Then he sends a letter to us blatantly lying about wanting spread peace in his region.He is supplying weapons to the insurgents that we're fighting.
I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying I doubt we'll get anywhere with it.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I would love to see Bill Clinton as our Secretary of State. That man has a way with people. Diplomacy is his middle name.

I like how Current Affairs mocks him, while at the same time, using the improper form of "you're. " It's "your," by the way, in the context that you used it in. I love it when people make fun of someone and are not capable of doing it while being grammatically correct. :lol:

Forgive me, aps. I know how you are perfect in every way and have never made any grammatical mistakes. I'll try and do better from now on.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

Ooooh so is that what you call it? Funny how when Clinton shoots cruise missles against terrorists it's called diverting attention but when Bush does it it's called bringing the fight to the enemy. You are so transparently predictable. Do you ever have anything constructive to add to the topic at hand instead of just blabbering whatever faux sound bite that pops into your mind? Talks with Iran support or not support - do try to keep up.

Except they weren't launched against terrorists, were they? But at least those little aspirins will never terrorize anyone again.

Even to the minimally educated, my post was very clear. I do not support talking nice-nice with Iran. Further, this is a thread about Bill Clinton and my post was very thread specific. Most do not need me to spell it out in simplistic words, as you are requesting. They are able to derive my meaning from the text as a whole.

More importantly, jfuh, is why you choose this path with those who might disagree with you politically. Face it, not everyone is going to share your opinions and, when you think carefully, that's what makes for debate. Why must you always insult other posters as to what is "constructive", who is "blabbering" or who must "try and keep up"? Come on, man, grow up a little.

 

[Stinger]

Sensible idea.
No doubt many of you disagree?

Oh yeah let's listen to that great foriegn policy leader Bill Clinton.

So what are you willing to give up to Iran in return for nothing?

 

[Stinger]

Put Clinton aside for a moment.
We talked with Russia all during the cold war, when they were threatening to blow us up along with the rest of the planet.

Not about what to do with our national security. We saw what happened when Carter tried to talk with them, it was Reagan who didn't talk but took action. Talk didn't defeat the Soviet Union.

The thinking for some on the right is: "We should kill and bomb before we succumb to use diplomacy as a last resort." It's very Orwellian...

And a phoney statement on its face. All the time we were "talking" with the Soviets we were also engaged in naval warfare with them, we were tapping their phone lines, we were spying on them and anyone who talked with them. Do you support we do that while we talk to our current enemies?

 

[Stinger]

Ooooh so is that what you call it? Funny how when Clinton shoots cruise missles against terrorists it's called diverting attention but when Bush does it it's called bringing the fight to the enemy. You are so transparently predictable. Do you ever have anything constructive to add to the topic at hand instead of just blabbering whatever faux sound bite that pops into your mind? Talks with Iran support or not support - do try to keep up.

You think it's just about pressing a button to launch a missle? It depends on what you fire it at and if you are willing to follow it up isn't it.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

You think it's just about pressing a button to launch a missle? It depends on what you fire it at and if you are willing to follow it up isn't it.

Don't try and inject too much logic, stinger. It gets in the way of the hate.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

How's not talking to Iran going?


Sometimes, in the real world we have to do things that idealists do not like. I know that there are idealists who'd rather that we not speak to Iran, but the reality of the situation is that talking to Iran could benefit the US.

Should we let sweet people and their idealism get in the way of what's good for the US? I say no. We should do what best for the US even though it may upset some idealists.

 

[jfuh]

Except they weren't launched against terrorists, were they? But at least those little aspirins will never terrorize anyone again.

Even to the minimally educated, my post was very clear. I do not support talking nice-nice with Iran. Further, this is a thread about Bill Clinton and my post was very thread specific. Most do not need me to spell it out in simplistic words, as you are requesting. They are able to derive my meaning from the text as a whole.

More importantly, jfuh, is why you choose this path with those who might disagree with you politically. Face it, not everyone is going to share your opinions and, when you think carefully, that's what makes for debate. Why must you always insult other posters as to what is "constructive", who is "blabbering" or who must "try and keep up"? Come on, man, grow up a little.

You're post only further shows of your strong bias and just how desperate you want to spin the issues. No, this thread is not about Bill Clinton. This thread is about opening dialogs with Iran.
You don't support opening of dialog well then elaborate on that instead of the nonsense of a stupid bj that the president got that even then was only for spin. So like I said, do try and keep up and not go into your usual spin cycle.

 

[Stinger]

You're post only further shows of your strong bias and just how desperate you want to spin the issues. No, this thread is not about Bill Clinton. This thread is about opening dialogs with Iran.

Ahhh read the title of the thread..............

You don't support opening of dialog well then elaborate on that instead of the nonsense of a stupid bj that the president got that even then was only for spin. So like I said, do try and keep up and not go into your usual spin cycle.

Maybe you should try your advice first before offering to others.

 

[jfuh]

When we talked to Moscow and Beijing we had the upper hand and were still building up our military. Not the same with Iran and Syria

Just what upper hand did we have over either of those two nations militarily? Both were already nuclear powers. Today we are at minimal 20 years ahead of the Iranians if not beyond in terms of having the "upperhand" militarily. This rational simply doesn't seem to fit.

As for N. Korea no everything was not fine you just don't come up with a nuclear bomb overnight. The were working on this from the get go and just playing Clinton, which is what will happen if we talk to Iran and Syria

And what positive results have we gotten from ignoring NK today? None. Kim Jun Ill, regardless of how wacko he is viewed as nevertheless represents a traditional power (pun intended). Talks did yield fruit with Kim Jun Ill under Clinton and those were allowing the UN inspectors in as well as the shut down of their nuke program.
An example.
1993 Kim threatened to withdraw from the NPT, Clinton appointed Robert Gallucci to restart talks (amidst heavy heavy opposition from the Republicans), after 89 days,NK states it will suspend it's withdraw. 1994 NK refused to allow inspectors under the NPT, Carter went in as the special envoy and achieved what the republicans at the time said was impossible (being a minority for 3 decades in congress does that to ppl, yelling screaming senseless remarks). Yet the Carter envoy worked, resulting in the 1994 agreed framework, the nuclear plant at Yongbyon was shut down and weapons inspectors were allowed back in.
This worked all the way through 2002, what happened in 2002? Jan. 29, 2002 Bush labels NK with Iran, Iraq, Syria and so on as the axis of evil. So yes, things fell apart after Bush.
The negotiations worked with the goals achieved. All throughout the Clinton years NK did not go nuclear, yet today with the administrations arrogance NK has gone nuclear and far more dangerous than it ever was.

Same way I referenced with Moscow and China.
Nixon in 1972 after visiting Moscow and Beijing resulting in the ABM treaty, greatly reducing the probability of global annihilation. Diplomacy when done right works. It's when you do not use diplomatic means and give the finger to the world that all hell breaks loose (Iraq).

What benifits can we get from talking to them? Do you really think they want to work with us or are they just trying to buy some time.
We run the risk of losing Israel as an ally if we talk to Iran and leave them out of it. Not a risk I want to take.

I don't know, but unless you try you'd never know. Just because we don't know right now is not a validation for not doing so. The question should be, what do we have to lose by talking with them. the answer is nothing.
And absolutely not, we would never lose Israel as our ally. Israel needs US support far more than US needing Israeli support. Without the US Israel would have long been destroyed by the Islamic coalitions.

 

[jfuh]

Ahhh read the title of the thread..............

Maybe you should try your advice first before offering to others.

Yep, dialogs with Iran that Clinton supports. Tell me where is there anything about Clinton diverting attention or his getting a BJ? Try to stay on topic.

 

[Stinger]

Yep, dialogs with Iran that Clinton supports. Tell me where is there anything about Clinton diverting attention or his getting a BJ? Try to stay on topic.

Someone claimed his foriegn policy as effect by it and since this is about Clinton's foriegn policy expertise...............why are you so afraid of a full airing of Clinton's foriegn policy experitise and whether he is in any position to give advice and guidence?